Ingeborg Beuttenmüller v Land Baden-Württemberg.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2003:464
• Docket Number: C-102/02
• Celex Number: 62002CC0102
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Procedure Type: Reference for a preliminary ruling
• Date: 16 September 2003

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
RUIZ-JARABO COLOMER
delivered on 16 September 2003(1)


Case C-102/02

Ingeborg Beuttenmüller
v
Land Baden-Württemberg


(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart)

(Freedom of movement for persons and services – Recognition of diplomas – General systems – Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC – Primary school teachers – Diploma awarded in Austria on completion of two years’ education and training – Recognition in Baden‑Württemberg (Germany) – Recognition conditional on diploma attesting to education and training of at least three years’ duration and qualifying the holder to teach two subjects)

1. The questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court), Stuttgart, Germany, concern the general systems for the recognition of professional education and training laid down in Directives 89/48/EEC (2) and 92/51/EEC. (3) 2. The six questions referred to the Court have arisen out of a dispute concerning what effect a professional primary-school teaching diploma, awarded in Austria, has in the Land Baden-Württemberg, Federal Republic of Germany. I – The facts and the main proceedings 3. Ingeborg Beuttenmüller is an Austrian national who, having passed her school-leaving examination, completed a two‑year course in Austria, (4) which led to the award of her teaching diploma. 4. From 1978 to 1988, Ms Beuttenmüller was employed as a teacher in State schools in the province of Lower Austria. Between 1991 and 1993, she worked in Baden-Württemberg as a teacher at a religious institution providing assistance to young displaced persons. Since 6 December 1993, she has been employed, under contract, as a teacher in State schools in Land Baden-Württemberg. 5. However, Ms Beuttenmüller is graded at a lower professional level than teachers who hold the qualification required in Baden-Württemberg, and she receives lower remuneration than that awarded to such teachers. (5) For that reason, by letter dated 16 March 1998, Ms Beuttenmüller applied, on the basis of Directives 89/48 and 92/51, to the Oberschulamt (Department of Education), Stuttgart, for her Austrian qualification to be treated in the same way as the diplomas awarded in the Land where she works and for her salary scale to be increased. (6) 6. In the administrative proceedings, Ms Beuttenmüller submitted a letter from the Stadtschulrat (City School Board) for Vienna, dated 8 April 1999, which stated that a person who has undertaken two years’ education and training in Austria is entitled to work as a primary-school teacher, provided that there are posts vacant. However, people who have undertaken two years’ education and training have a lower job classification (7) than teachers who have trained for three years, (8) unless the former complete further training and pass an examination in either modern languages and pre-school education or the general principles of teaching subjects included in the syllabus to pupils with special needs. In any event, both types of training and education are the same for the purposes of obtaining employment. (9) 7. The Oberschulamt Stuttgart dismissed Ms Beuttenmüller’s claim in a decision dated 26 August 1999, and informed her that her education and training could not be regarded as equivalent to that required for teaching in primary and secondary schools in Baden-Württemberg. That decision was confirmed by order of 21 November 2000. 8. On 20 December 2000, Ms Beuttenmüller brought a contentious-administrative action before the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart, seeking annulment of the disputed administrative acts and an order that the defendant administration must treat her Austrian teaching diploma as equivalent to the Baden-Württemberg primary- and secondary-school teaching diploma, or, should it be appropriate, must allow her to fulfil the requirements for obtaining the recognition sought by means of the relevant compensatory measures. II – The questions referred for a preliminary ruling 9. In view of the fact that the claims put forward by the claimant are based on the direct applicability of Directives 89/48 and 92/51, and in the light of the arguments submitted in the proceedings, the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart decided to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘1.

Is Article 3, in conjunction with Article 4, of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of education and training of at least three years’ duration directly applicable, so that a national of a Member State may rely directly on the provisions of the directive where it has not been correctly transposed into national law?

2.

Is Article 3, in conjunction with Article 4, of Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC directly applicable so that, in the absence of implementing measures enacted within the period prescribed for that purpose, a national of a Member State may rely on those provisions of the directive as against all national provisions that are not in conformity with the directive?

If the answer to the first and/or second question is in the affirmative:

3.

Does Council Directive 89/48/EEC … or Council Directive 92/51/EEC … preclude national legislation (in this instance … the Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Education regulation for the teaching profession of 15 August 1988 transposing Council Directive 89/48/EEC …) which

(a)

makes recognition of a professional teaching qualification, awarded or recognised in another Member State of the European Union, conditional, without exception, on completion of higher education and training of at least three years’ duration; and

(b)

requires, for the purpose of such recognition, the qualification to comprise at least two of the subjects stipulated for the teaching profession in question in Baden-Württemberg?

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

4.

Is the second subparagraph of Article 1(a) of Directive 89/48/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the qualification for the profession of primary-school teacher awarded on the basis of the former two-year system of education and training in Austria is to be treated in the same way as a diploma within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 1(a) of Directive 89/48/EEC where the competent authority in Austria confirms that the examination certificate awarded following education and training of two years’ duration is recognised, for the purposes of the application of the second subparagraph of Article 1(a) of Directive 89/48/EEC, as being of a level equivalent to the diploma (examination certificate) currently awarded after three years’ study and confers the same rights in Austria in respect of the taking up or pursuit of the profession of primary-school teacher?

If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative:

5.

Is [the final subparagraph of] Article 3 of Directive 92/51/EEC to be interpreted, with regard to the recognition of professional teaching qualifications, as meaning that the prerequisite of a “post-secondary course of more than four years’ duration”, specified in that provision, only encompasses the prescribed higher education and training (higher-education studies) or as meaning that the probationary period of teaching practice (probationary service) counts towards the “post-secondary course of more than four years’ duration”?

6.

If Article 3, first subparagraph, of Directive 92/51/EEC applies to professional teaching qualifications awarded after only two years’ (higher) education and training in Austria:

In the event of failure to transpose Directive 92/51/EEC within the period prescribed in Article 17 thereof, does Article 3(a) of that directive give rise to an entitlement to have a teaching qualification awarded in a Member State treated in the same way as the corresponding qualification for a teaching career in the host Member State without the host Member State being permitted – where the particular conditions are fulfilled – first of all to require compensatory measures to be applied under Article 4 of the directive?’

III – The proceedings before the Court of Justice 10. The parties to the main proceedings, the Commission and the Austrian Government submitted written observations within the period prescribed in Article 20 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. 11. Since none of the parties applied to present oral argument, the Court decided to dispense with a hearing, in accordance with Article 104(4) of the Rules of Procedure. IV – Recognition under Community law of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training A – Founding legislation 12. Article 3(1)(c) EC stipulates that one method of achieving the aims of the Community, set out in Article 2 EC, is the establishment of ‘an internal market characterised by the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital’. (10) 13. That mechanism must be applied without discrimination on grounds of nationality, as stipulated in the first paragraph of AArticle 12 EC (ex Article 6 of the EC Treaty), and confirmed in the first paragraph of Article 43 EC (ex Article 52 of the EC Treaty) which provides that ‘restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State...